Sexualisation vs. the empowerment of women in marketing: My take on Sydney Sweeney's Novig ad

This week, Novig, a US-based sports betting company, released a 1-minute advert featuring Sydney Sweeney.

In the week since this ad was released, social media has exploded with opinions on how this wrongly represents women in the sports industry and acts as a step back in the empowerment of women. It could be argued that including a link to the video is simply giving the ad more attention, but I think to fully grasp the conversation, you need to see the video.

To begin understanding the problems associated with this advert, the question we need to be asking is: does 'sexy' equal sexualisation in marketing? The simple answer to this is no. A lot of campaigns are now showcasing women as what would traditionally be defined as 'sexy' to portray empowerment rather than sexualisation as it once was. An example of this from a few years ago is the Victoria's Secret's 2021 holiday campaign, which focused on their plaid collection with a 'sexy' photoshoot. The difference here... the campaign was curated to give women control of their bodies and reject the principles once set by the male gaze.

The sexualisation of women in marketing comes from two sources: the brand and the audience.

In the past, the term 'sex sells' was thrown around like the answer to all marketing problems. I think that this whole concept stems back to the 1910s when a magazine advert for Woodbury's soap released an advert called "A skin you love to touch". The advert was designed to educate women on various skin problems; however, it quickly came to represent beauty, and the level of love that can be associated with beauty standards.

Although the majority of brands are coming away from the strategy that 'sex sells', it still exists depending on who the target audience is. This advert from Novig is a prime example that it still exists.

The audience is a different factor. Even if we don't intend to sexualise women in the media, it is still happening. In another blog I wrote, I found that 63.1% of women state that they have not sexualised a woman in sport; 51.2% of men said the same. Yet, 43.6% of these same people used objectifying terms when describing female athletes later in the same study. This doesn't mean that the audience is a problem, or that they are lying; it simply means that we might not truly understand when we are sexualising someone.

What this does mean is that both brand and audience need to be considered when making a judgement on whether something is sexualisation. If a brand intends to empower women through their media, it cannot be sexualisation just because the audience wants it to be. This doesn't mean that brands need to explicitly state that they are trying to empower women, but when brands use women's bodies to attract attention, it is sexualisation (typically through the male gaze).

How does the Sydney Sweeney advert fit into all of this?

To fully understand the depth of this question, we need to focus on the intended audience of a campaign and the message sent by the brand. By thinking about these two factors, we can quickly understand if something is sexualisation or empowerment.

For this advert, the intended audience is men. Is it bold of me to assume that the audience for this advert is men? Probably not. Over the years, Sydney Sweeney has focused her brand on the male gaze. As a concept, this is not a problem. A lot of celebrities and influencers cater their content to the opposite gender; what matters is the message sent.

“The concept is simple: cut through the noise and put the focus entirely on sports. The campaign brings that idea to life with confidence, humor and a playful edge.” - Sydney Sweeney said in the press release with Novig.

This sounds simple, right? The message of this advert is to get people to focus on sports. Yet, this isn't really what the message is telling us. The words being repeated in this advert want us to think about sports, but instead we are left thinking about a woman's body without any wider meaning.

What this is doing is impacting the way that women are seen. Even though the intended audience is not women, it is giving men another platform to believe that women's bodies are an object to be desired. So, this Sydney Sweeney's advert is not primarily a sports problem. The main issue here isn't that this is a bad representation of women in sports. The main issue is that we still think it is okay to use women's bodies to sell something, resorting back to the whole 'sex sells' propaganda. This advert sets out to focus on sports, yet the result is sexualising Sydney Sweeney's body to get attention.

While I think there is a bigger problem at play than just the representation of women in sports, I don't think this reduces the feelings of those within the sports industry who have taken this advert as an insult to women's sports. It is an insult to women in sports, but it is also an insult to women everywhere, whether they take part in sport or not.

Even though there is a big agreement that this is to do with the sexualisation of women... where do we, as the audience, place the blame: the brand or the person?

On one hand, you have the brand, Novig, who are primarily to blame for any marketing decisions. However, when a celebrity or influencer is involved, it is important to consider their role to understand their input, as it affects their brand. Stating the obvious, Sydney Sweeney is a big name. With that comes a different level of responsibility.

Unfortunately, we live in a very parasocial world with celebrities and influencers where we feel entitled to something that isn't ours. These people do not need to live up to our expectations. Nor do they need to conform to any standards set in place by onlookers. However, their personal morals and industry influence need to be taken into consideration when placing blame.

During a Variety interview, Sydney Sweeney spoke about the online conversation around her body:

“I play a lot of very divisive characters, and I think that a lot of people think they know me, but they don’t. So when people think, ‘Ah, she’s a sex symbol,’ or ‘She’s leaning into that,’ I’m like, ‘No, I just feel good and I’m doing it for myself and I feel strong.’ And I hope that I can inspire other women to be confident and just flaunt what they got and feel good because you shouldn’t have to apologize or hide or cover up in any room,”

So, we must question: if Sydney Sweeney is using her body to make herself feel strong, is it empowerment? Unfortunately not. While there is nothing wrong with a woman using her body, when the purpose is attracting the attention of men, it is sexualisation through the male gaze. In the same way that I earlier mentioned that when brands use a woman's body to attract attention, it is sexualisation.

I say this with complete confidence... women should be allowed to be naked in an advert without it being sexualisation. Both in and out of sports, we have seen this. From the earlier Victoria's Secret campaign to the ESPN body issue that, from 2009 to 2019, has had both men and women using their bodies to tell a story about empowerment. The purpose for both of these campaigns was empowerment, the intention of those in the campaign was empowerment. Whether or not the audience interpreted it as empowerment or sexualisation, it is still empowerment.

In this case, the intended purpose from the brand (Novig) and person (Sydney Sweeney) was to gain the attention of the audience using a naked female body to achieve this goal. Even though Sydney Sweeney feels empowered (credit to her for this), it is sexualisation through and through.

But this doesn't mean that Sydney Sweeney is to blame for the backlash of the Novig campaign. In fact, in most cases, the brand should be the only one to blame. However, Sydney Sweeney is a strategic partner and equity holder for Novig, which means her involvement in the campaign runs deeper. This most likely means that she played a large role in creating this advert, showing that she is a lot smarter than anyone is giving her credit for. Not only has she proven once again that she understands her audience well enough to know what will spark conversation, she has also helped Novig create a name for themselves.

Was this a successful marketing campaign from Novig?

Two things can be true at the same time, and I think this advert is a great example of that. On one hand Novig have created a marketing campaign which has generated widespread attention, but on the other hand, it's not good attention. This opens up the point... can a marketing campaign be considered a success if the conversation is so negative? In my opinion, yes.

Before this week, I hadn't heard of Novig. Before this week, the majority of people talking about this campaign hadn't heard of Novig. Yet, we have now. None of this is important. I am not the target audience for this campaign. Nor are the majority of people speaking about this campaign. What has happened though is that everyone speaking about this campaign (including major broadcasters such as the BBC) has allowed the real target audience to see this campaign. Not just once, but probably daily for the past week.

So now, the real target audience have seen the advert, and know the Novig name. While they may not run to download the app this week, they might remember the name the next time they think about placing a sports bet.

There is no 'correct' answer to this debate. You're allowed to think this is a smart marketing move, because on one hand, this advert has generated over 1 million views on YouTube in the space of 5 days. But you must also acknowledge the upset this has caused women and be part of the conversation.

I think there are some really great conversations happening online at the moment about this topic, which I suggest you check out: @oliviagraceherring, @korijanepoetry, @nayawritessss, @kellylmatthews, and @tillykearns. I don't think the conversation as a whole is close to being done, but I think this is another step in us understanding where the marketing industry is heading.